|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 4, 2020 17:29:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 4, 2020 18:04:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by loosestools on Dec 4, 2020 18:07:50 GMT
It's completely the other way round - under first past the post you only need about 35% of the vote (the tail) in order to dictate to 65% of the electorate (the dog). The number of votes required to return an MP in the current parliament is: 864,743 to elect the lone Green MP 642,303 votes for zero Brexit Party MPs 334,122 to elect each Liberal Democrat 50,817 to elect each Labour MP 38,300 votes to elect each Conservative MP 38,316 to elect each Plaid Cymru MP 25,882 to elect each SNP MP So 1 Tory voter has 20 times the say so of a Green Party supporter - or 20 Green party supporter votes are the equivalent of one Tory vote. And as much as I detest the Brexit Party 642,303 people may as well have flushed their ballot paper down the toilet - are you saying nearly 1 million people should have no say in how they are governed purely because of the vagaries of an antiquated voting system? How is that in any sense "democratic". It's certainly more efficient to have a single party in control but ultimately it generates resentment and division and massive swings in direction with one party spending half their time demolishing what the last party in charge did. PR changes the nature of politics - it becomes more about resolving competing but legitimate perspectives rather than just the imposition of the will of the largest minority. Funnily enough the argument for stable government is the mantra of the communist party in China - and every other one party state for that matter. But we are not a one party state, we are a two party state and the leadership of those two parties swing between two wings. That would suggest we are a "4 party" state, but in reality we are a "3 party" state because when the left of the Labour Party are in the ascendancy, they are unelectable. But worse than that, when the Labour left are in the ascendancy, we have got right wing Tory government with Thatcher and Johnson, such is the British people's aversion to left wing politics. If we had proportional representation, it is possible the 2 main parties split like Labour did when the Social Democratic "gang of four" did. Then we might have at least 9* parties in Parliament and all sorts of wheeling and dealing like Italy. You would vote for your choice and get a liquorice allsorts government. * Labour right, Labour left, Tory, Scots Nats, Welsh Nats, Irish unionist (×2?), United Ireland, Greens, Liberal Democrats, and the raving loonies! I'm not defending fptp but I am saying it isn't always "greener in the next field" as so many seem to think. I also think if your create a system where the politicians can cook everything between themselves without a written constitution you are heading into very dangerous undemocratic waters, and governments you can't get rid of. The Tory/Lib Dem coalition introduced fixed term parliaments at Lib Dem insistance as a condition of support; how long did that last? If you have parties doing deals to form a government then I believe a written constitution that can only be changed by the people is an essential guarantor of democracy. Do you trust British politicians? People have argued for PR for generations, the problem is always you will never get a majority to agree on any system. Politicians will always want a system that suits them best. Great post Mr Coke.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Dec 4, 2020 18:29:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scottzbj on Dec 4, 2020 18:35:34 GMT
Stop complaining everyone, we're 8th FFS
|
|
|
Post by dexta on Dec 4, 2020 19:33:45 GMT
Stop complaining everyone, we're 8th FFS just outside the play offs
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Dec 4, 2020 19:59:05 GMT
So the hypothesis about possible vaccine side effects on fertility are being put forward by Michael Yeadon. He hypothesises that the homology (how similar 2 proteins are) between the Covid spike protein and a gene called Synctin1 could cause the generation of auto-antibodies, which are antibodies that erroneously target the body’s own tissue and result in its destruction. For example, Type 1 diabetes can be caused by autoantibodies destroying the beta cells within the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas, thus preventing the production of insulin. Synctin1 is activated and is essential in placental development, is basically causes the early foetal membrane to fuse with the placenta and to establish a nutrient supply. Yeadon postulates that the spike protein and Synctin1 are similar enough to generate cross immunity and that this will result in autoantibodies that destroy the placenta mid development resulting in miscarriage and infertility. However, how much homology is enough? Yeadon lists a 5 amino acid sequence with similar (4/5 acids match) homology, for reference Spike protein is around 1200 amino acids and Synctin 1 is about 540. So is this 5 amino acid sequence enough to generate cross immunity? Well, the beauty of modern proteomics is that you can align sequences and check homology against any protein coded for in the genome as done below: (the guy is private o twitter so reposting with poorer quality but you can see it) The crux is that a protein that is 1200 amino acids long will share small overlaps with quite a lot of proteins. In that thread he makes homology comparisons to the Covid spike and genes that are absolutely essential to life, generation of auto-antibodies to them would invariably cause acute death and life threatening complications within weeks. Genes with similar 4/5 acid overlaps include actin a key component of cell cytoskeletons which hold them together, Collagen a fundamental component of connective tissue and haemoglobin, which we all need to move oxygen around our bodies. So if cross auto- immunity was a huge problem we would die in infancy from acute infection induced immunity generating antibodies to kill our own tissue. Many pathogens have this level of homologous proteins. As such the body has a mechanism to safely destroy closely matched recognition sites by destroying the white blood cells that target them, stopping antibody production at source. Whilst these can become dysregulated as in diabetes it is relatively rare and if it didn’t exist we’d all be dead. But the final point of this is an important one, Yeadon makes this hypothesis based on something called the polyclonal response to the vaccine. A polyclonal response is when the antigen (the foreign body) is identified by the immune system which then makes antibodies that hit different sites of the same antigen. Essentially like using a shotgun, it spits out various antibody types to hit the antigen in different ways to ensure it is cleared. Yeadon proposes it is this ability to hit multiple spike protein targets that will then accidentally start hitting Synctin 1. However the issue with this is, natural infection also causes a polyclonal antibody response, meaning if the homology is that great between the spike protein and human genes such as synctin 1, the spike protein antibodies generated NATURALLY would also induce these proposed effects on fertility. Given the volume of worldwide infections, this would have been observed, and even more so if the similar homology seen in essential to life genes was such a risk. Therefore, the risk of cross immunity induced infertility by the vaccine is as likely as cross immunity induced infertility by the infection, the whole point of the vaccine is to simulate the infection in the first place remember. So if the risk is there from the jab, it’s there from infection. Therefore the risk to fertility by this route is unlikely based on these factors and the fact the homology is no greater than that of some very essential genes and to my knowledge no mass decrease in female fertility post infection has yet been observed. We could test for this by drawing serum from convalescing patients and seeing if their spike protein antibodies attach to Synctin 1 in an assay, but we would then have to do it for every single gene with 4 matching amino acids which would be literally thousands of targets. (I’m sure someone will though.) I'm glad you've brought this up Matt, I read this yesterday and was fully intending on asking you for your opinion on it. I assume reading what you've written above, that you feel it has little merit and that if you're female, aged (say) 24 and in one of the top at risk groups, you shouldn't be unduly worried about having the vaccine in January or February? And what are your thoughts with regard to ADE, if you've already had the virus? Cheers 2020news.de/en/dr-wodarg-and-dr-yeadon-request-a-stop-of-all-corona-vaccination-studies-and-call-for-co-signing-the-petition/Hi Paul, ADE is a bit more complex and if I’m perfectly honest I don’t feel qualified enough to give you a detailed answer on it. So I’d rather defer to Francois Balloux’s thread on it here. The Prof is really well balanced as you know and doesn’t seem worried by the idea at all. Mainly because the diversity of Covid strains is far too narrow to trigger the creation or recreation of redundant antibodies. That and the fact most reinfections appear to be l harmful than the original and the majority are so mild they are not being detected regularly because these people are now symptomless. With regard to the fertility point, there is no suggestion as to why the 4/5 overlap would only be prescient for Syncytin 1 over the other proteins listed. Yeadon just posted a screenshot of the overlap as proof of homology but as Croxford has demonstrated there’s probably thousands of proteins where this occurs. So I concur that fertility effects are unlikely given the fact the homology is actually trivial and even if it wasn’t natural infection would trigger exactly the same putative reaction to the similar sequences and we’ve seen nothing of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Dec 4, 2020 20:03:26 GMT
Just what we need, Yeadon being his usual controversial self frightening the shit out of people.
He loves the attention doesn't he.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 4, 2020 20:46:46 GMT
Hi Paul, ADE is a bit more complex and if I’m perfectly honest I don’t feel qualified enough to give you a detailed answer on it. So I’d rather defer to Francois Balloux’s thread on it here. The Prof is really well balanced as you know and doesn’t seem worried by the idea at all. Mainly because the diversity of Covid strains is far too narrow to trigger the creation or recreation of redundant antibodies. That and the fact most reinfections appear to be l harmful than the original and the majority are so mild they are not being detected regularly because these people are now symptomless. With regard to the fertility point, there is no suggestion as to why the 4/5 overlap would only be prescient for Syncytin 1 over the other proteins listed. Yeadon just posted a screenshot of the overlap as proof of homology but as Croxford has demonstrated there’s probably thousands of proteins where this occurs. So I concur that fertility effects are unlikely given the fact the homology is actually trivial and even if it wasn’t natural infection would trigger exactly the same putative reaction to the similar sequences and we’ve seen nothing of the sort. Thanks for the reply Matt and the link, (as you say) I've been following Balloux for a while now and have a lot of time for him. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 4, 2020 21:36:38 GMT
Just what we need, Yeadon being his usual controversial self frightening the shit out of people. He loves the attention doesn't he. Said without a single hint of irony.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Dec 4, 2020 22:12:28 GMT
Just what we need, Yeadon being his usual controversial self frightening the shit out of people. He loves the attention doesn't he. Said without a single hint of irony. You carry on worshipping him along with his sycophantic mate Ivor Cummins
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 4, 2020 23:13:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by musik on Dec 4, 2020 23:25:46 GMT
Same problem up here in the north. Glad I didn't take one. On Tv today on a docusoap about a family, a young couple living together got covid-19 and were isolated for 2-3 weeks with fever and loss of taste. In the show they did a test and it showed she'd got it but he didn't. Very unlikely the way they live together, like glue and with the exact symptoms.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Dec 4, 2020 23:43:19 GMT
Sweden decided in 2018 to replace the vaccine journal system where all the vaccinations are registered.
Unfortunately, they haven't replaced it yet. 😶 It's called Svevac and is on its way out. A company runs it but in turn is owned by the cities and regions. In May this year no new health care clinics can be registered.
FHM (People Health Agency) shall March 15th tell how the heck this problem could be solved. No new system is in place and the Svevac system has its cons.
The vaccination program is likely to be delayed considerably here. We don't have enough nurses giving the injections, which requires a certain education. On the radio this week some authority said 13000 nurses as an estimate (weird they don't know for sure). But experts in the studio said it's an overestimation.
13000 nurses performing 20.700.000 injections (10.350.000 x2).
1592 injections per nurse. 😲
I can understand if they're a bit worried - since these nurses also have other things to do.
🤓
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 5, 2020 9:27:05 GMT
It's completely the other way round - under first past the post you only need about 35% of the vote (the tail) in order to dictate to 65% of the electorate (the dog). The number of votes required to return an MP in the current parliament is: 864,743 to elect the lone Green MP 642,303 votes for zero Brexit Party MPs 334,122 to elect each Liberal Democrat 50,817 to elect each Labour MP 38,300 votes to elect each Conservative MP 38,316 to elect each Plaid Cymru MP 25,882 to elect each SNP MP So 1 Tory voter has 20 times the say so of a Green Party supporter - or 20 Green party supporter votes are the equivalent of one Tory vote. And as much as I detest the Brexit Party 642,303 people may as well have flushed their ballot paper down the toilet - are you saying nearly 1 million people should have no say in how they are governed purely because of the vagaries of an antiquated voting system? How is that in any sense "democratic". It's certainly more efficient to have a single party in control but ultimately it generates resentment and division and massive swings in direction with one party spending half their time demolishing what the last party in charge did. PR changes the nature of politics - it becomes more about resolving competing but legitimate perspectives rather than just the imposition of the will of the largest minority. Funnily enough the argument for stable government is the mantra of the communist party in China - and every other one party state for that matter. But we are not a one party state, we are a two party state and the leadership of those two parties swing between two wings. That would suggest we are a "4 party" state, but in reality we are a "3 party" state because when the left of the Labour Party are in the ascendancy, they are unelectable. But worse than that, when the Labour left are in the ascendancy, we have got right wing Tory government with Thatcher and Johnson, such is the British people's aversion to left wing politics. If we had proportional representation, it is possible the 2 main parties split like Labour did when the Social Democratic "gang of four" did. Then we might have at least 9* parties in Parliament and all sorts of wheeling and dealing like Italy. You would vote for your choice and get a liquorice allsorts government. * Labour right, Labour left, Tory, Scots Nats, Welsh Nats, Irish unionist (×2?), United Ireland, Greens, Liberal Democrats, and the raving loonies! I'm not defending fptp but I am saying it isn't always "greener in the next field" as so many seem to think. I also think if your create a system where the politicians can cook everything between themselves without a written constitution you are heading into very dangerous undemocratic waters, and governments you can't get rid of. The Tory/Lib Dem coalition introduced fixed term parliaments at Lib Dem insistance as a condition of support; how long did that last? If you have parties doing deals to form a government then I believe a written constitution that can only be changed by the people is an essential guarantor of democracy. Do you trust British politicians? People have argued for PR for generations, the problem is always you will never get a majority to agree on any system. Politicians will always want a system that suits them best. I agree completely about a written constitution and it would need to go hand in hand with the introduction of PR - in part because I don't trust any politician. If PR were introduced then some form of coalition government is almost inevitable and personally I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing - compromise moderates excess. In retrospect the Lib Dem/Tory coalition government wasn't that bad - as soon as the Tories ditched the Lib Dems they lurched to the right and things have gone from bad to worse. The big difference now is that it might actually be in Labour's interests to embrace PR. During the Blair years they could rely on returning a good number of MPs in Scotland but they've been pretty much been wiped out in Scotland by the SNP. They've also lost of traditional socially conservative working class votes in the north and it's questionable as to whether they will get them back - or even want them back. Labour faced this problem at the last election - how do you satisfy two diametrically opposed groups of supporters? The answer is you can't without looking two faced or confused. To retain credibility Labour have to decide whether they want to be a progressive party or one that appeals to people who are more socially conservative - fudging it really isn't an option anymore. Once they make that decision they are going to lose more votes - and that's before the Corbynistas realise the games up and jump ship. Labour may have to face the fact that with people less likely to vote along traditional class based lines their only route back into power is some form of coalition. The current system is stacked massively in favour of the Tories - even before they stitch it up further with the boundary review. The Tories know that to remain permanently in power all they have to do is pull in about 35% of the vote which they can do with relative ease. In terms of practical politics the only party who don't want PR is the Tories and their supporters as the current system is going to give them exclusive access to the reins of power. In reality any Labour supporter not wanting PR is just happy in opposition.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 5, 2020 12:01:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 5, 2020 12:38:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Dec 5, 2020 14:34:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Dec 5, 2020 15:15:43 GMT
But we are not a one party state, we are a two party state and the leadership of those two parties swing between two wings. That would suggest we are a "4 party" state, but in reality we are a "3 party" state because when the left of the Labour Party are in the ascendancy, they are unelectable. But worse than that, when the Labour left are in the ascendancy, we have got right wing Tory government with Thatcher and Johnson, such is the British people's aversion to left wing politics. If we had proportional representation, it is possible the 2 main parties split like Labour did when the Social Democratic "gang of four" did. Then we might have at least 9* parties in Parliament and all sorts of wheeling and dealing like Italy. You would vote for your choice and get a liquorice allsorts government. * Labour right, Labour left, Tory, Scots Nats, Welsh Nats, Irish unionist (×2?), United Ireland, Greens, Liberal Democrats, and the raving loonies! I'm not defending fptp but I am saying it isn't always "greener in the next field" as so many seem to think. I also think if your create a system where the politicians can cook everything between themselves without a written constitution you are heading into very dangerous undemocratic waters, and governments you can't get rid of. The Tory/Lib Dem coalition introduced fixed term parliaments at Lib Dem insistance as a condition of support; how long did that last? If you have parties doing deals to form a government then I believe a written constitution that can only be changed by the people is an essential guarantor of democracy. Do you trust British politicians? People have argued for PR for generations, the problem is always you will never get a majority to agree on any system. Politicians will always want a system that suits them best. I agree completely about a written constitution and it would need to go hand in hand with the introduction of PR - in part because I don't trust any politician. If PR were introduced then some form of coalition government is almost inevitable and personally I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing - compromise moderates excess. In retrospect the Lib Dem/Tory coalition government wasn't that bad - as soon as the Tories ditched the Lib Dems they lurched to the right and things have gone from bad to worse. The big difference now is that it might actually be in Labour's interests to embrace PR. During the Blair years they could rely on returning a good number of MPs in Scotland but they've been pretty much been wiped out in Scotland by the SNP. They've also lost of traditional socially conservative working class votes in the north and it's questionable as to whether they will get them back - or even want them back. Labour faced this problem at the last election - how do you satisfy two diametrically opposed groups of supporters? The answer is you can't without looking two faced or confused. To retain credibility Labour have to decide whether they want to be a progressive party or one that appeals to people who are more socially conservative - fudging it really isn't an option anymore. Once they make that decision they are going to lose more votes - and that's before the Corbynistas realise the games up and jump ship. Labour may have to face the fact that with people less likely to vote along traditional class based lines their only route back into power is some form of coalition. The current system is stacked massively in favour of the Tories - even before they stitch it up further with the boundary review. The Tories know that to remain permanently in power all they have to do is pull in about 35% of the vote which they can do with relative ease. In terms of practical politics the only party who don't want PR is the Tories and their supporters as the current system is going to give them exclusive access to the reins of power. In reality any Labour supporter not wanting PR is just happy in opposition. The current boundaries have favoured labour for decades
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Dec 5, 2020 15:21:27 GMT
For some strange reason I found that amusing
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Dec 5, 2020 16:11:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Dec 5, 2020 16:30:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by innocentbystander on Dec 5, 2020 18:43:34 GMT
Sweden decided in 2018 to replace the vaccine journal system where all the vaccinations are registered. Unfortunately, they haven't replaced it yet. 😶 It's called Svevac and is on its way out. A company runs it but in turn is owned by the cities and regions. In May this year no new health care clinics can be registered. FHM (People Health Agency) shall March 15th tell how the heck this problem could be solved. No new system is in place and the Svevac system has its cons. The vaccination program is likely to be delayed considerably here. We don't have enough nurses giving the injections, which requires a certain education. On the radio this week some authority said 13000 nurses as an estimate (weird they don't know for sure). But experts in the studio said it's an overestimation. 13000 nurses performing 20.700.000 injections (10.350.000 x2). 1592 injections per nurse. 😲 I can understand if they're a bit worried - since these nurses also have other things to do. 🤓 I once saw a surprising documentary about your health service. It was called "Naughty Swedish Nurses" and it looked alright to me.
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Dec 5, 2020 19:49:46 GMT
Sweden decided in 2018 to replace the vaccine journal system where all the vaccinations are registered. Unfortunately, they haven't replaced it yet. 😶 It's called Svevac and is on its way out. A company runs it but in turn is owned by the cities and regions. In May this year no new health care clinics can be registered. FHM (People Health Agency) shall March 15th tell how the heck this problem could be solved. No new system is in place and the Svevac system has its cons. The vaccination program is likely to be delayed considerably here. We don't have enough nurses giving the injections, which requires a certain education. On the radio this week some authority said 13000 nurses as an estimate (weird they don't know for sure). But experts in the studio said it's an overestimation. 13000 nurses performing 20.700.000 injections (10.350.000 x2). 1592 injections per nurse. 😲 I can understand if they're a bit worried - since these nurses also have other things to do. 🤓 I once saw a surprising documentary about your health service. It was called "Naughty Swedish Nurses" and it looked alright to me. Sounds good. Is it on Betamax or VHS?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Dec 6, 2020 9:44:41 GMT
I once saw a surprising documentary about your health service. It was called "Naughty Swedish Nurses" and it looked alright to me. Sounds good. Is it on Betamax or VHS? Video 2000
|
|
|
Post by musik on Dec 6, 2020 10:27:20 GMT
A Tegnell and A Wold this week both explained the pandemic situation regarding death cases in the same way: immigration and travelling.
Covid-19 death cases per 100.000 citizens
Sweden 69.4 Denmark 14.95 Iceland 7.64 Finland 7.39 Norway 6.66
(source: John Hopkins ; Expressen (swe newspaper)
Sweden have had a doubled excess mortality among people originally from Irak, Somalia and Syria due to Covid-19, according to Läkartidningen (Doctor's Union Paper). Sweden have a much larger proportion of immigrants in the population compared to the other northern countries. In the beginning of the pandemic many of these people travelled to and from Great Britain, France, Spain and Belgium and that's how the disease was transmitted, Agnes Wold said.
Her advice now for Christmas is: stay in quarantine and celebrate Christmas at New Year.
But before the third wave in January-February, before the vaccine has had any effect, according to top headline news today.
😷
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Dec 6, 2020 12:42:10 GMT
Nottingham Christmas market yesterday😮
Shut after one day
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Dec 6, 2020 12:46:18 GMT
Pubs can’t open🤔🙄
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 6, 2020 13:05:48 GMT
I agree completely about a written constitution and it would need to go hand in hand with the introduction of PR - in part because I don't trust any politician. If PR were introduced then some form of coalition government is almost inevitable and personally I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing - compromise moderates excess. In retrospect the Lib Dem/Tory coalition government wasn't that bad - as soon as the Tories ditched the Lib Dems they lurched to the right and things have gone from bad to worse. The big difference now is that it might actually be in Labour's interests to embrace PR. During the Blair years they could rely on returning a good number of MPs in Scotland but they've been pretty much been wiped out in Scotland by the SNP. They've also lost of traditional socially conservative working class votes in the north and it's questionable as to whether they will get them back - or even want them back. Labour faced this problem at the last election - how do you satisfy two diametrically opposed groups of supporters? The answer is you can't without looking two faced or confused. To retain credibility Labour have to decide whether they want to be a progressive party or one that appeals to people who are more socially conservative - fudging it really isn't an option anymore. Once they make that decision they are going to lose more votes - and that's before the Corbynistas realise the games up and jump ship. Labour may have to face the fact that with people less likely to vote along traditional class based lines their only route back into power is some form of coalition. The current system is stacked massively in favour of the Tories - even before they stitch it up further with the boundary review. The Tories know that to remain permanently in power all they have to do is pull in about 35% of the vote which they can do with relative ease. In terms of practical politics the only party who don't want PR is the Tories and their supporters as the current system is going to give them exclusive access to the reins of power. In reality any Labour supporter not wanting PR is just happy in opposition. The current boundaries have favoured labour for decades Oh well - that's alright then...as long your minority stays in power everything's fine. Why should the majority even bother voting if it's a stitch up anyway?
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Dec 6, 2020 13:10:16 GMT
Sounds good. Is it on Betamax or VHS? Video 2000 Haha. Forgot about that one. Came third in a two horse race according to a link on google.
|
|